[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
Andrew C. Oliver
acoliver at buni.org
Thu Jan 4 05:27:34 UTC 2007
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (acoliver at buni.org):
> The defined process OSI as an organisation long ago established requires
> as a prerequisite that the user of a licence submit their licences for
> approval. It does not as a body engage in theoretical examinations of
> licences that _might_ be used and _might_ be evualted _if_ they were
> ever submitted.
Yet this is at least a policy formal or informal that if I were to
submit a license which prohibits redistribution of source and mandates
DRM that it would be rejected. Thus the discussion is appropriate (and
I would say probably more appropriate than a bunch of hackers discussing
>> I do not think the present
>> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php) goes too far
>> because the unqualified banner means it is no more intrusive than the
>> original BSD licenses. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sure it is.
> BSD original clause 3 (advertising clause) states:
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this * software
> * must display the following acknowledgement:
> * This product includes software developed by the University of
> * California, Berkeley and its contributors.
> In the classic BSD spirit, that clause doesn't encumber code usage in any
> way. In fact, it doesn't even _address_ usage. The rest of the licence
> merely allows redistribution and use for any purpose, as long as the
> copyright notice is retained and coder names aren't used to endorse or
> promote products, and on condition that all warranties are disclaimed.
A very good point. The BSD did not force me to have a splash
forced me to have one. I did not mean to say the GAP or Exhibit B, only
referenced linked license which is less intrusive than most of the
Exhibit Bs that I've seen, granted I don't particularly LIKE it.
> About as far as a reasonable interpretation of OSD #6 (in particular,
> the freedom to reuse in commerce) suggests. Nicholas Goodman has
> pointed out, in that connection, that "Exhibit B" firm MuleSource has
> recently stated bluntly that its licence's _aim_ is to induce commercial
> users of its MPL + Exhibit B codebase to buy a "commercial licence",
While the euphemism "badgeware" to avoid the connotation of "adware"
annoys me (it is really the same thing), it is a very good post.
More information about the License-discuss